Lesson video

Hello there.

My name is Mr. Robertson.

I really love RE and I am delighted to be with you today.

This lesson is in our GCSE unit about religion, peace and conflicts.

In today's lesson, we are looking at the idea of violence, including violent protest, as we're gonna be thinking about what that means and about how Christians particularly, but also humanists respond to this idea of violence and violent protest.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain what Christians and humanists believe about violence and violent protest.

We have three keywords in today's lesson.

Our first word is the word violence, and by that we mean the use of physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill.

We have the words righteous anger, and by that we mean anger about something morally wrong with the aim of making things right in a fair and just way.

And finally, we have the word altruistic, and by altruistic we mean doing something to help others, even if it's personally difficult, without expecting a reward.

As we go through the lesson you'll see how these words are used in context, and I think they're going to be really helpful and useful to you.

So this lesson has three sections to really drill down into this idea of violence and violent protest.

In the first section we're going to be looking at Christian and humanist views about violence.

So let's begin.

Izzy and Sam are discussing violence.

Izzy says, "I wonder if Christians and humanists have the same views on violence?" Sam thinks about this and they say, "I think most Christians and humanists would oppose violence, but maybe for different reasons." Interesting point, Sam.

I wonder what you think? I wonder whether you think Christians and humanists would share views? Or perhaps they might have some similar views, but have different ways of thinking about it.

You might want to just start your thoughts off by pondering this or pausing the video and talking to somebody.

So Christians and humanists generally believe violence should be avoided because it harms people and it harms communities.

Many Christians believe violence causes physical harm, damages relationship, and goes against Jesus' teaching.

The central teaching here is the idea of loving your enemies, which is in Luke 6:27.

Christians believe that Jesus taught them to act with compassion and to be forgiving to others.

And so therefore, most Christians prefer peaceful solutions to problems and non-violent responses.

Most humanists believe that problems can be solved using reason, facts, and respect for everyone's rights.

So we have a similar idea that violence should be avoided, but we have slightly different places that these worldviews are coming from.

So Christians may look to a sourceful authority such as Jesus' teaching on loving enemies and forgiveness.

Whereas humanists might start with the humans themselves and thinking about using reason and empathy and talking about the importance of rights.

But the common ground here is trying to reject violence and prefer talking and working together to solve conflicts.

Let's meet Alan.

Alan is a humanist.

And he discusses some of his thoughts on violence.

Alan says, "For me, violence is a sign of failure.

Humans have great gifts of reason and empathy.

I think we should do all we can to avoid resorting to violence.

I understand that people get angry or feel under threat, but I don't think using violence to defend your beliefs is justifiable.

We should start by talking and negotiating." So listening to Alan as a humanist, what might we pull out here? We might notice that he thinks that humans should use our reason and empathy rather than resorting to violence.

He understands that we all get angry, but he doesn't feel that using violence to defend beliefs is justifiable.

Let's check our understanding so far.

Why do Christians and humanists generally believe violence should be avoided? A, because it's always against the law.

B, because it can harm people and communities.

C, because it means people will never have disagreements.

Think about what we've been learning so far.

Excellent, it's B, isn't it? Great thinking.

Because Christians and humanists might argue that violence can harm people and communities.

Fantastic if you got that right.

Okay, let's check our understanding so far.

We're going to be looking at some information now about Alan.

So as we've established Alan is a humanist, and we're going to tick the statements he would agree with and put across next to the ones he would not.

Here are the statements.

Respecting everyone's rights helps create a more peaceful society.

Violence for religious reasons can harm people and divide communities.

Sometimes violence for religious reasons is the best way to protect your beliefs.

It is better to solve disagreements through discussion rather than violence.

If a religious group feels strongly about an important issue, their beliefs should allow them to use violence.

Think about what he told us.

Pause the video.

Have a go.

Brilliant work, everybody.

Right, let's see what you've put.

So Alan, yes, he would agree that respecting everyone's rights creates a more peaceful society.

And he would also agree that violence for religious reasons can harm people and divide communities.

However, he would not agree if you remember him saying this, that violence for religious reasons is the best way to protect your beliefs.

He would agree it's better to solve disagreements through discussion rather than violence.

And he would not agree that if a religious group feels strongly about an important issue, their beliefs should allow them to use violence.

So if you manage to identify this correctly, fantastic thinking, you are really beginning to understand humanist worldviews and what they might say about violence.

Okay, let's move on to the second part of our lesson.

We're going to be looking at the idea of altruism and when that might justify violence.

So this question, can violence ever be justified? Is a really important question.

And different worldviews have wrestled with this for many centuries.

Some people argue that altruism can lead to justifying violence if it's perceived as necessary for the greater good.

So let's have an example here.

This is our case study.

Aid organisations are trying to deliver food to villages in a conflict zone.

No food has reached the villages and the people are in danger of famine.

Armed gangs are stopping food deliveries and taking the food for themselves.

The aid organisations want to use armed guards for protection.

And this might lead to violence.

So here we have a particular situation, and I wonder what you think in this situation where an aid organisation is trying to do something altruistic, so it's trying to help people in need.

It wants a solution which can and might lead to violence.

Do you feel that violence could be justified in this situation? I wonder what you think? I wonder what you think Christians or humanists might think.

Okay, let's look at some individuals and see what they might responded to this case study.

So let's meet Fiona.

Fiona has a Christian worldview.

Fiona says, "I've been a Christian aid worker in this region.

I support armed security escorting the food trucks, even though this could lead to violent clashes.

The intention of this work is altruistic.

We want to help people who may starve.

Therefore, I have to accept there may be a risk of violence." What do you think about what Fiona says? What are argument is she making that as a Christian, she feels it's okay to have armed security guards in this sense? She talks about the intention of the work, doesn't she? Her intention.

They're trying to do some altruistic work, and so therefore the risk of violence is justified because of what they're trying to do.

Let's meet Alan.

Alan, as we know, has a humanist worldview.

Alan says, "I'm a humanist aid worker and I work closely with Fiona.

We believe it's the only way to get life-saving supplies to the people who need them.

In my view, the possible use of violence is justified to protect innocent lives.

It's an altruistic action for the greater good." So again, let's think about what Alan is saying here.

So he's actually agreeing with Fiona, isn't he? For him, again, the important thing is the intention, the action, trying to make a difference, trying to do the right thing.

And so therefore, he believes, although as we've heard earlier, he doesn't like violence and sees it as a failure.

In this example, violence could be justified to protect innocent lives.

Now, not all Christians and humanists think that altruism justifies violence.

Let's meet Fergus.

Fergus is Christian, but he has a different worldview.

This is what Fergus says.

He says that, "I think that violence, even if it meant to help, can still hurt people and make problems worse.

It might harm innocent people, cause more fighting, and make it harder for everyone to get along in the future.

I think real altruism means fighting peaceful ways to help so you don't cause harm." So we can see here that Fergus' view is different from Fiona's, isn't it? They're both Christian, but Fiona feels that the violence is justified in that situation, whereas Fergus is saying no even if the intention is okay, violence will just make problems worse.

Innocent people might get hurt, it might cause more harm in the long term.

So for him that even though altruism might be an intention, it isn't good enough to justify violence.

Let's just check some of our understanding so far.

Why might Christians consider violence for altruistic reasons? A, to gain political power.

B, to protect others in life-threatening situations.

C, to benefit yourself.

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's to protect others in life threatening situations.

Think of the case study we've been looking at about the aid trucks and the armed guards and how Fiona said, don't like it, but I think to protect people, it's the right thing to do.

Okay.

Got a second task for you here thinking about this idea of altruism.

We've got Aisha and Lucas.

Aisha says, "If you are really trying to help people, you should never use violence.

Hurting someone can never be the right way to do good." Lucas says, "Sometimes you might have to use force to protect people." So I'd like you to explain why both these statements are aligned with Christian beliefs.

They're saying ever so slightly different things, but think about what we've been learning about so far.

Think about our case studies of Fiona and Fergus.

They both had slightly different views, didn't they? So can you explain why Aisha and Lucas both represent different Christian beliefs about violence? Really looking forward to what you come up with.

Okay, great thinking, everybody.

So you might have said, "Both of these ideas fit with Christian beliefs because Jesus taught us to love your enemies.

Luke 6:27.

So some Christians might think that means violence is never part of altruism, because love means never hurting anyone." And that was the view that Fergus said, wasn't it? "Others think you could still follow Jesus' teaching and use violence, but only to protect people, if it's the most loving and selfless thing to do." And that's what Fiona said, wasn't it? She said, trying to aid to help innocent people and so violence might be justified.

So we have two different Christian views, but that same source of authority, love your enemies, works for both of them, but they might interpret that in different ways.

For the third part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at this idea of righteous anger and its link to violent protest.

Righteous anger in Christianity is not about revenge or hatred.

It is anger directed at injustice or wrongdoing with the aim of restoring things to God's intended way.

So it has a very specific idea.

It's not the anger that we might feel when someone annoys us or upsets us personally, and we are driven by wanting to get back at them.

That's kind of ideas of revenge or hatred.

It's where you see something which you believe is unjust or wrong and you feel anger at that injustice and you want to make it better.

And many Christians might say that that kind of anger is about trying to restore the world how they feel God wanted it to be.

So there are examples of this in the Bible.

A really famous example which is a great example to use is in the life of Jesus.

And we see this in the Gospel of Matthew.

And in Jesus life after teaching in Galilee he went up to Jerusalem and he presented himself at the temple, which was the huge centre of Jewish worship.

And whilst he was there, he saw people exchanging money, and selling things in the temple precincts and he felt a righteous anger.

And he went around and in the gospels it describes him pushing over the tables and throwing people outta the temple.

Now why was he doing that? Well, it wasn't just about anger or losing temper.

It was about his view that this was unjust behaviour in a place of worship.

He felt that this buying and selling was going against what God wanted.

And so Christians use this as an example of taking action from righteous anger.

So just to clarify, righteous anger aims to bring justice, peace, and alignment with God's love.

Righteous anger is not about personal gain.

Many Christians believe that righteous anger should still be expressed without violence.

So for example, we might be really angry at something going on in the world, but there are ways which that could be done, such as peaceful protest, campaigning, making petitions, representing to members of parliament, or acts of service, like getting directly involved with charities to make a difference.

Some Christians believe that if these peaceful options are failed, limited violent protest can be justified if it stops a greater harm or restores justice.

So an example we might look at is The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which occurred during the Second World War.

And at that point in Nazi-occupied Poland, a ghetto had been created in Warsaw where the Jewish people had been put and they were there in horrible, terrible conditions and were going to be taken away to some of the extermination camps that we know about.

At one point, the Jewish resistance in that ghetto rose up against the Nazi soldiers.

And at that point some Christian fighters joined this Jewish resistance.

The argument there was one of a righteous anger.

They were moved by the plight of the Jewish people and the genocide that was going on, and they wanted to defend those people and stop them being sent from to the death camps.

So in that example, righteous anger, the use of violence was those Christians felt justified because of the greater harm of the genocide of Jews that was going on.

So humanists and Christians might agree that in very rare situations, violent protest could be seen as the most selfless option.

And their reasoning is shaped by different foundations.

Humanists might start with a foundation of human welfare, empathy, judgement , and human rights.

So human rights are being disrupted or destroyed.

A humanist might feel empathy for what's going on and want to take a stand to promote the welfare of the world.

Christians might be guided by love and justice and looking at examples within the Bible as we've looked at and try to enact God's will.

So let's look at some people and see how they might respond to this.

We've met Fiona, she has a Christian worldview.

Fiona says, "I support the work of Extinction Rebellion, which is a climate protest movement.

To me, the climate crisis is a threat to humanity.

I don't believe we can stand back and wait for people to act.

I follow the example of Jesus showing righteous anger.

I sat down with others to block a bridge in my hometown to raise awareness of the climate." So Fiona is an example of a Christian who feels that righteous anger can be justified.

What is she motivated by? What is causing her righteous anger? Yeah, exactly.

So for her, the climate crisis is an existential threat.

It's a huge issue.

She doesn't feel that peaceful protest is doing enough, so she wants to take direct action to do something about it.

And the example that she did was she blocked a bridge in her town, stopping traffic and people crossing, and she did that because she felt she was using Jesus's teaching on righteous anger.

So we can see that for her worldview, she felt that that was something that was justifiable because of the greater good.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

When Jesus overturned the tables in the temple, how is this an example of righteous anger? A, he was angry at the unfair and corrupt behaviour in a place meant for worship.

B, he wanted to show that losing your temper can be powerful.

C, he was trying to start a rebellion against the temple leaders.

Think about what we said.

Excellent.

It's A, isn't it? Jesus was angry at what he felt was in the corruption of a place of worship.

And so his overturning of the tables was a righteous anger about that.

Excellent.

If you got that right.

Let's just check our understanding further.

How might a humanist respond to the idea of using violent protest as a form of righteous anger? A, supports it if it is based on religious teaching.

B, reject it because all anger is wrong in every situation.

C, prefer peaceful methods, but some may allow it in rare cases to protect human rights.

Again, pause the video, have a think.

Excellent.

It's C, isn't it? Referring peaceful methods but allowing it to protect human rights.

Humanists would not use religious teaching as a way of justifying anger as it's a non-religious worldview.

Okay, so let's come to our final task.

I'd like you to choose one modern protest movement.

You could use the example of Extinction Rebellion that we've used here, or you could choose one of your own that you know about at the moment.

And that can be a peaceful movement or a violent movement.

And I want you to explain how Christians might use Luke 6:31 to support it.

Now, Luke 6:31 says, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." And how another Christian might use the same verse to oppose it.

So we've got a table here to help us.

So an argument for righteous anger might be, "If you were being treated unfairly, you'd want someone to stand up for you.

Righteous anger can protect people and stop injustice." But an argument against righteous anger might be, "If you wouldn't want others to be angry or use force against you, then responding with anger goes against this teaching.

Choose kindness instead." So find a movement that you want to look at.

It could be either peaceful or violent, and thinking about what we've learned in the case studies we use.

How might a Christian argue that you could support it or oppose it and use that Luke 6:31 to help you.

Brilliant to see what you come up with.

Okay, fantastic work, everybody.

So I've used the example of Extinction Rebellion because that's the one we've talked about in this lesson.

But you may have chosen another organisation and that's brilliant, well done.

So I might say, "I chose Extinction Rebellion.

A Christian might use Luke 6:31 to support that action by saying, 'If my home or community was being destroyed by climate change, I want others to speak up for me.

Even if their protest cause violence or disruption, it could be an example of righteous anger 'cause it's trying to protect people and the planet from serious harm and change the future.

'" And that's kind of the argument that Fiona was making, wasn't it? So well done if you've made that point, you've used Luke and you've been able to say this idea of the reasoning behind righteous anger about protecting people and the planet.

On the other hand, you might have said, "Another Christian might use the same verse to oppose some of their methods saying, 'I agree we should care for the environment, but I wouldn't want people to stop me from getting to work, school, or hospital, so I shouldn't do that to others.

I think Luke 6:31 means we should stay up for the planet, stand up for the planet in a way that's peaceful and doesn't hurt or upset people unnecessarily.

'" So that idea of doing unto others as you would have done to you, a Christian might say yes, it's important we protect the environment, but actually I wouldn't want my life to be disrupted and I wouldn't not want to be able to get to the places I want to go to, so actually I don't think I should behave like that to others.

And so it's advising a different way of protecting the planet a peaceful way.

So if you've managed to make some points where you've used Luke 6:31, and you've said why a Christian might use that to justify supporting that organisation and the methods they use or disagreeing with it, that's brilliant.

Really well done and fantastic work.

Okay, so in this lesson on violence and violent protest, we've learned that Christians and humanists generally avoid violence because it harms people and communities and they prefer peaceful solutions.

We've learned that altruism can sometimes be used to justify violence if it protects innocent lives.

Though not all agree this is the right approach.

And we've learned that some believe violent protests could be justified as righteous anger if peaceful options fail.

While others think acting with love and kindness means protest should always remain nonviolent.

Well done for thinking through this topic.

It's a complex topic and there's been lots of different things to think about, but I hope that this lesson has helped you and hope that you feel a bit more confident answering questions about this topic.

Look forward to seeing you in another lesson soon.

Thank you.